Friction heater running in my house

[Bruce_TPU]

*Deleted*
Nope, changed my mind.  He simply built a drum oil friction heater.  I will try my own ideas out and see what I see, for snickers and giggles.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2878-my-replication-fuelless-oil-heater-3.html

Cheers,

Bruce

[Bruce_TPU]

And, check this out:

http://www.rexresearch.com/frenette/frenette.htm

[Bruce_TPU]

I think if one were to design a friction heater, at peak efficiency, perhaps a ARCHIMEDES SCREW could be used, to create greater movement and friction of the oil.  I will have to play with this idea.  The screw would lift the oil up, have it run down the outside of the innercylinder, and back to its starting point.  Perhaps even have the oil run through  perforations on it's return trip, via negative pressure as a result of the up pumping action of the screw?      

Fun thoughts.

Cheers,

Bruce

[MileHigh]

Bruce:

You should read your own link:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Infinite Energy 23: 23 (1999)

December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test: Previously Reported Results Retracted
By Jed Rothwell & Ed Wall

We first reported on the Kinetic Furnace, invented by Eugene Perkins and Ralph Pope, in Issue # 19. The device had, at that time, been tested by several independent engineering laboratories and services. The Kinetic Furnace is, as the name implies, a device for heating and forcing airflow. Heat is generated by means of a rotor that flings water from the hub to the rim of its chamber, through some precisely dimensioned nozzles. This "stirring" action is driven by a 6 HP electric motor. The heated water is driven out of the rotor chamber into a radiator and out an output duct.
In April 1998, Eugene Mallove and Jed Rothwell assessed the furnace for themselves at the inventors' facility in Cumming GA, where they observed the apparent production of excess heat.
Furhter testing was carried out by Mallove and Ed Wall, June through September of 1998, in Bow NH at NERL (New Energy Research Laboratory), but no significant excess heat was observed during that period. Another machine was shipped from Georgia, but it too showed no excess. Finally, Pope loaded a third unit into a van and drove it to New Hampshire himself. He helped install and test it, but this third test also failed. Different sources of water were tested, the operating temperature and the rotation speed of the motor were varied slightly, but no significant excess energy was observed. In IE #22 we reported on this briefly, expressing continued hope that the machine would produce excess heat. We reported a COP (Coefficient of Performance) of 115% (155% excess heat) This level of excess heat is difficult to establish with certainty using airflow calorimetry. A 200 or 300% excess could be detected with confidence, but 15 to 20% could be the result of subtle errors.
Pope returned to Georgia, discouraged. It was clear that we had hit a dead end, and that if the machine does work, there must be something different about the way it was being operated or the water or some other material in Georgia. We decided that the only way we would ever get to the bottom of this mystery would be to conduct extensive tests on site in Georgia, using our instruments and Pope's in parallel. The machine is large enough to allow several temperature probes and ammeters to be attached simultaneously, unlike the small hand-held cold fusion cells, which often only have room for one set of instruments.
In November 198, Pope reported that he was now achieving a COP as high as 180% with the machine he had brought to Bow, which had been reconditioned and reassembled with a new rotor and pipes. Rothwell conducted a half-day of testing of this machine in the Cummings GA machine shop location, using the same instruments and techniques Rothwell and Mallove used in April. Most of this 180% turned out to be an artifact of Pope's anemometer, which suffered from a power supply probem caused by worn out rechargeable batteries. The measured air speed was too low. The high excess heat results reported by Pope in previous issues of this magazine were also probably caused by this error. Ralph Pope does not agree with this assessment and believes that the air speed was measured correctly. The blower power did not change and so it is highly unlikely that the airspeed fell. While the large excess was clearly wrong, apparent 46% excess heat was seen, which was in line with what we observed in April. We were encouraged by this preliminary result, yet puzzled and wary by our inability to replicate it in New Hampshire. We decided to press ahead with full-scale tests in Georgia. Ed Wall went to Georgia bringing several tools and precision instruments, listed on page 27.
In the series of tests from December 4-9, 1998, Wall, Rothwell, and Pope tested the Kinetic Furnace extensively, using higher quality instruments and more sophisticated techniques than Pope had ever used. Unfortunately, no significant excess heat was observed. Based on the December results, we believe our initial assessment in April was incorrect, and there was never any significant excess heat in the tests we performed in Georgia or New Hampshire. We believe we have discovered the source of the error which caused the artificial heat in Georgia. The error was in technique rather than instruments or formula. In the December tests we used an improved technique, a computer, an HP 34970A Data Acquisition System, and an array of 11 K-Type, 20 gauge wire thermocouples (four on the inlet and seven on the outlet side). The thermocouples were calibrated carefully through the temperature range of interest and compared to NIST traceable mercury thermometers. By performing this calibration, we learned that the thermocouples read about 0.5° F less than the calibration thermometer over the temperature range of interest. At the same time we used the computerized instruments, we repeated the tests using the same relatively crude, hand-held instruments --- ammeters and thermometers employed in November. In this second test with hand-held electronic, alcohol and mercury thermometers, we measured no excess heat, thus confirming the computer thermocouple readings.

[Bruce_TPU]

Yep, I think I would also add some nanoparticles (nickel? cheap) to the oil to increase the skin friction an make the heating process also more efficient. 

@ Oilpiggy,
You also may want to place some grooves, that are counter of the spin of your discs, into your discs, as this too should increase friction, thus increasing heat.  More heat at less RPM would equal greater power efficiency.

Cheers,

Bruce